Once I went to a zoo with my GF-at-the-time. We were in a gift shop mucking around with the various doodads, next thing I know, I see flakes falling from above. I look up at the wood beams running along the ceiling, and watched as a carpenter bee dug through the wood, crawled out of the hole and then flew away. Those suckers dig fast.

Every definition I have read has nothing on where the SOURCE of the action is, just on the ACTION itself. Censorship is not about who does it, but that there is an editing, a repressing of opinion - some cases, like private companies editing their journalists (to various extends) are fine, but that's not a matter of "censorship" versus "not censorship," but a question of "acceptable censoring" versus "unacceptable censoring."

Only if you're utterly an utter failure at critical thinking. Liberalizing alone does not give any hint at the extent, which can be as simple as preventing them from lasting as long as they do, and allowing consumers to do modifications, and backing up unhindered (as well as the ability to play media on whatever device they want unhindered) - which is a far cry from that in any sense of the word *

* purposefully excluding the fact that copyright infringement =/= theft legally, and the opinion that the two should stay separate on all levels, because of how much of a tangent I risk going off of by touching that can of worms.

I'm a little lost... why under the existing license would it be hard for the rightsholder to specific games to just go to the MAME team, and work it out? OF course, a more flexible, and open license is always a good thing IMO (too much rigidity hinders efforts that could be legal and good of course, but this specific example given still puzzled me.

And I wish they'd make some progress on Bemani System573 Digital emulation.:(

Last I checked, no definition of censorship I know of requires a government entity be doing it. Self censorship, for example, is censorship by definition since you are keeping whatever - opinions, explicit outbursts, etc hidden or edited, but doing it on your own to yourself... it's still censorship though because of that editing, or hiding mechanism being in place. Now, if you tackle the issue from a "is it allowed" or even a "is Google morally allowed to do this" standpoint, the legal answer probably (IANAL) being yes, the moral answer being subjective, personal opinion...
tl;dr version:

- Whether it is censorship or not is not based on if the entity censoring is a government entity at all, but rather the act of editing or hiding information.

- This is a basic definition, something of that effect in pretty much every fucking dictionary definition

- All Google owning the servers means is they can censor certain things legally - whether it is moral or not IS up to opinion, but going by any textbook definition, it is still censorship.

- Why do I feel like the OP might be too stupid to understand all this?

True... because asking you to turn on a dead cellphone is equivalent to throwing you in a concentration camp due to your political views without due process.

True... because the Nazis were known for throwing you in a concentration camp due to your political views without due process, that's ALL they did/were known for. *rolls eyes*

People who discount Nazi analogies purely because they think Nazis were only about the concentration camp, genocide aspect, and miss the buildup to that point and the things being put upon citizens, really need a better understanding - as there was more to them than just THAT specific act of horror, little things, a creep in power, the attitudes, the power grabs, and more.

Its a slippery slope that DC is right to avoid with a flat out denial.

I see the potential for a slope, but that would be with the type of request IMO - and on that level you still have the power to say yes or no. So they would need to come up with some criteria, if they did, that would end the potential slope right there.

pfft, "first world problems," yeah, focus on the items being targeted when saying that, not the actual issue at hand, and with a straight face, I'll still call you a fool. Idiotic intrusions are not a "first world problem."

I already dream in full color, and I shit you not, feel like I am able to use my senses - sound, sight, touch, smell, taste, etc, as if I were awake.

A while back, I had a dream where I found a shitload of cash - I recall in the dream saying "Let me put it in this draw,I'll get it later - and the person I was with saying "Yeah, but this is a dream, you'll look there and nothing will be there," to which I replied "Damn, you're right." I woke up after a few more things occurred in said dream, not as soon as I was aware I was dreaming. I was in control of my dream, aware I was dreaming, and this is just one example of things I go through almost every night.

Sometimes this is awesome, sometimes this is terrifying, sometimes it's neither extreme, just fun. To actually have more control

Privacy in public is a contradiction
Yeah, if you believe privacy only equals physical privacy, which is ignorant - protip: Privacy != just physical, you have privacy of mind and thought - somebody asks you for your opinion on something for example, you need not say it, so IMO "privacy in public places doesn't exist" is only true if talking PHYSICAL privacy - without that quantifier, this is a bullshit notion, IMO

What measures are being taken to ensure they shame the right people? Get the wrong people, and defamation suits would prob. succeed. Look at, for a relevant-but-in-a-different-field example, the Griffin Black Book - listed poker players who counted cards as outright cheaters - which is untrue since the rules don't prohibit it, that's a casino policy [hint: not the same]. They sued, won, and the company - citing the lawsuit/outcome filed for bankruptcy.